阅读理解Questions 11 to 20 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 11 to 20 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 41 to 50 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Educators and business leaders have more in common than it may seem. Teachers want to prepare students for a successful future. Technology companies have an interest in developing a workforce with the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills needed to grow the company and advance the industry. How can they work together to achieve these goals? Play may be the answer. Focusing on STEM skills is important, but the reality is that STEM skills are enhanced and more relevant when combined with traditional, hands-on creative activities. This combination is proving to be the best way to prepare today’s children to be the makers and builders of tomorrow. That is why technology companies are partnering with educators to bring back good, old-fashioned play. In fact many experts argue that the most important 21st-century skills aren’t related to specific technologies or subject matter, but to creativity; skills like imagination, problem-finding and problem-solving, teamwork, optimism, patience and the ability to experiment and take risks. These are skills acquired when kids tinker (鼓捣小玩意). High-tech industries such as NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory have found that their best overall problem solvers were master tinkerers in their youth. There are cognitive (培养) benefits of doing things the way we did as children—building something, tearing it down, then building it up again. Research shows that given 15 minutes of free play, four- and five-year-olds will spend a third of this time engaged in spatial, mathematical, and architectural activities. This type of play—especially with building blocks—helps children discover and develop key principles in math and geometry. If play and building are critical to 21st-century skill development, that’s really good news for two reasons; Children are born builders, makers, and creators, so fostering (培养) 21st-century skills may be as simple as giving kids room to play, tinker and try things out, even as they grow older. Secondly, it doesn’t take 21st-century technology to foster 21st-century skills. This is especially important for under-resourced schools and communities. Taking whatever materials are handy and tinkering with them is a simple way to engage those important "maker" skills. And anyone, anywhere, can do it.
阅读理解Questions 81 to 90 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 61 to 70 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 1 to 10 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 36to 40 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 21 to 30 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 31 to 40 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 61 to 70 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 21 to 30 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 61 to 70 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 31 to 40 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Questions 6 to 10 are based on the following passage
阅读理解Science of setbacks : How failure can improve career prospectsA) How do early career setbacks affect our long-term success? Failures can help us learn and overcome our fears. But disasters can still wound us. They can screw us up and set us back. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was genuine, scientifically documented truth to the expression "what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger" ?B) One way social scientists have probed the effects of career setbacks is to look at scientists of very similar qualifications. These scientists, for reasons that are mostly arbitrary, either just missed getting a research grant or just barely made it. In social sciences, this is known as examining "near misses" and "narrow wins" in areas where merit is subjective. That allows researchers to measure only the effects of being chosen or not. Studies in this area have found conflicting results. In the competitive game of biomedical science, research has been done on scientists who narrowly lost or won grant money. It suggests that narrow winners become even bigger winners down the line. In other words, the rich get richer.C) A 2018 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, followed researchers in the Netherlands. Researchers concluded that those who just barely qualified for a grant were able to get twice as much money within the next eight years as those who just missed out. And the narrow winners were 50 percent more likely to be given a professorship.D) Others in the US have found similar effects with National Institutes of Health early-career fellowships launching narrow winners far ahead of close losers. The phenomenon is often referred to as the Matthew effect, inspired by the Bible’s wisdom that to those who have, more will be given. There’s a good explanation for the phenomenon in the book The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by Albert Laszlo Barabasi. According to Barabasi, it’s easier and less risky for those in positions of power to choose to hand awards and funding to those who’ve already been so recognized.E) This is bad news for the losers. Small early career setbacks seem to have a disproportionate effect down the line. What didn’t kill them made them weaker. But other studies using the same technique have shown there’s sometimes no penalty to a near miss. Students who just miss getting into top high schools or universities do just as well later in life as those who just manage to get accepted. In this case, what didn’t kill them simply didn’t matter. So is there any evidence that setbacks might actually improve our career prospects? There is now.F) In a study published in Nature Communications, Northwestern University sociologist Dashun Wang tracked more than 1,100 scientists who were on the border between getting a grant and missing out between 1990 and 2005. He followed various measures of performance over the next decade. These included how many papers they authored and how influential those papers were, as measured by the number of subsequent citations. As expected, there was a much higher rate of attrition (减员) among scientists who didn’t get grants. But among those who stayed on, the close losers performed even better than the narrow winners. To make sure this wasn’t by chance, Wang conducted additional tests using different performance measures. He examined how many times people were first authors on influential studies, and the like.G) One straightforward reason close losers might outperform narrow winners is that the two groups have comparable ability. In Wang’s study, he selected the most determined, passionate scientists from the loser group and culled (剔除) what he deemed the weakest members of the winner group. Yet the persevering losers still came out on top. He thinks that being a close loser might give people a psychological boost, or the proverbial kick in the pants.H) Utrecht University sociologist Arnout van de Rijt was the lead author on the 2018 paper showing the rich get richer. He said the new finding is apparently reasonable and worth some attention. His own work showed that although the narrow winners did get much more money in the near future, the actual performance of the close losers was just as good.I) He said the people who should be paying regard to the Wang paper are the funding agents who distribute government grant money. After all, by continuing to pile riches on the narrow winners, the taxpayers are not getting the maximum bang for their buck if the close losers are performing just as well or even better. There’s a huge amount of time and effort that goes into the process of selecting who gets grants, he said, and the latest research shows that the scientific establishment is not very good at distributing money. "Maybe we should spend less money trying to figure out who is better than who,"he said, suggesting that some more equal dividing up of money might be more productive and more efficient. Van de Rijt said he’s not convinced that losing out gives people a psychological boost. It may yet be a selection effect. Even though Wang tried to account for this by culling the weakest winners, it’s impossible to know which of the winners would have quit had they found themselves on the losing side.J) For his part, Wang said that in his own experience, losing did light a motivating fire. He recalled a recent paper he submitted to a journal, which accepted it only to request extensive editing, and then reversed course and rejected it. He submitted the unedited version to a more respected journal and got accepted.K) In sports and many areas of life, we think of failures as evidence of something we could have done better. We regard these disappointments as a fate we could have avoided with more careful preparation, different training, a better strategy, or more focus. And there it makes sense that failures show us the road to success. These papers deal with a kind of failure people have little control over—rejection. Others determine who wins and who loses. But at the very least, the research is starting to show that early setbacks don’t have to be fatal. They might even make us better at our jobs. Getting paid like a winner, though? That’s a different matter.
阅读理解Questions 11 to 15 are based on the following passage
阅读理解There’s a stress gap between men and womenA) "I used to work very hard. I love to create things, grow them and solve problems," said Meng Li, a successful app developer in San Francisco. "I didn’t really care about my mind and my body until they decided to go on strike. "B) Ms. Li said her stress led to sleeplessness. When she did sleep, she experienced "problem-solving dreams," which left her feeling unrested when she woke up. "After I became a first-time mother, I quickly realized I was so busy caring for other people and work that I felt like I’d lost myself," she said.C) It’s a common story—one we frequently ridicule and readily dismiss, for example, by claiming that women tend to complain more than men, despite the growing sum of research that underlines the problem. Women are twice as likely to suffer from severe stress and anxiety as men, according to a 2016 study published in The Journal of Brain and even more stressed. After her own struggle with this, Ms. Li took a step back and used her experience to build Sanity & Self, a self-care app and platform for overworked women. "The realizations I had in that process helped me gain insights and ultimately got me ready to integrate self-care into my daily life," she said.I) The stress problem extends beyond mental health when you consider the link between stress, anxiety and heart health. Worse, most of what we know about heart disease comes from studies involving men. However, "there are many reasons to think that it’s different in women," Harvard Medical School reported. For example, women are more likely to experience disturbed sleep, anxiety and unusual fatigue before a heart attack. Stress is so normalized that it is easy for women to shrug off those symptoms as simply the consequences of stress. Many women also do not experience chest pain before a heart attack the way men do, which leads to fewer women discovering problematic heart issues. Harvard reports that women are "much more likely than men to die within a year of having a heart attack" and "many women say their physicians sometimes don’t even recognize the symptoms."J) The good news is, women are more likely than men to take charge of their stress and manage it, the American Psychological Association reports. The concept of self-care, at its core, is quite simple. "The basics of adequate sleep, healthy diet and exercise are a good place to start," Dr. Joyce said. "Support from trusted relationships is vital. This includes professional support from various health and wellness providers if stress is becoming increasingly overwhelming. "K) Disconnecting from work and home responsibilities is also obviously important. But it’s much easier said than done. It is important to understand what causes your stress in the first place. "Get really specific with what’s stressing you out," Ms. Li said. "We often chalk up our stress to broad experiences like work. But work stress can take many different forms. Is a colleague being disrespectful of your time? Is a boss undermining your day-to-day control over decision making? These are different causes of stress and can benefit from different kinds of self-care." L) Ideally, your spouse or partner will be supportive, rather than dismissive, of your stress. It is important to talk through these issues before they come to a head. "Women working outside of the home should make an effort to have a conscious conversation with their partners about more equitable sharing of household and family responsibilities," Dr. Joyce said.
阅读理解Questions 1 to 5 are based on the following passage